5 comments:

Smoking should be allowed in private clubs where attendance is limited. Public places should be outlawed because the smokers and non-smokers aren't separated. If I am not a smoker, I must still breathe someone elses second hand smoke.I referenced this topic in my blog on1/4/08

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposedthreat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; acancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasizedthroughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of localgovernment. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer ofunlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantommenace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journalindicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the properreaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educatingpeople about the potential danger and allowing them to maketheir own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and forcepeople to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather thanattempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, thetobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they haveactually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, andoffices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whosecustomers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some localbans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviouslynegligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to beanswered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessmentof the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regardingevery aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriendor sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get marriedor divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmfulconsequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from theneighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He mustbe free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and onlyhisown judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarettesmokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying andunpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered thepower of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect ofinhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at yourfavourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarmat those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimitedintrusion of government into our lives.

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposedthreat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; acancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasizedthroughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of localgovernment. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer ofunlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantommenace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journalindicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the properreaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educatingpeople about the potential danger and allowing them to maketheir own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and forcepeople to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather thanattempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, thetobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they haveactually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, andoffices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whosecustomers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some localbans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviouslynegligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to beanswered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessmentof the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regardingevery aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriendor sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get marriedor divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmfulconsequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from theneighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He mustbe free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and onlyhisown judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarettesmokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying andunpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered thepower of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect ofinhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at yourfavourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarmat those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimitedintrusion of government into our lives.

"Smoking should be allowed in private clubs where attendance is limited."

Why are private clubs any different than a person acknowledging that they are entering a smoking establishment and assuming their own risk? I'm assuming that you would support the allowance of a private smoking club on the basis of acceptance of the risk when joining the club. What if there were signs on the doors of all smoking establishments that said, "WARNING! THIS ESTABLISHMENT ALLOWS SMOKING! ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!".

Twitter

Facebook

Scott Walker's small, stale & caustic agenda

James Rowen's Bio

James Rowen, a writer and consultant, has worked for newspapers, and as the senior Mayoral staffer, in Madison and Milwaukee, WI. This blog began on 2/2/ 2007. Posts run also at various news sites, including The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Purple Wisconsin."